1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the charge of fraud in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the deception of fraud and the causal relationship between a dispositive act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. According to the misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding the requirements for confiscation, the lower court rendered a decision to return part of the devices of the seized mobile phone to the Defendant on August 24, 2018. On the same day, while rendering a judgment of the lower court on the same day, the lower court only sentenced the confiscation of part of the devices other than the devices of the mobile phone that were subject to the said decision of return.

Therefore, on the premise that the lower court again rendered a ruling of confiscation of the seized article, the allegation of the grounds for appeal that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the requirements for confiscation cannot be accepted.

3. The Defendant’s final appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.